quote:

---

I think this makes it pretty clear why some people don't want to get annexed. And judging by your past comments on this issue, you'd be one of those telling the land owner what to do.

---

agdotcom: o how wrong you are. I am pro property rights and if that particular owner wanted to sell the property to developers or put in a pig farm, no one would hear a complaint from me.

there is a difference between that and annexing land into the city limits.

its a tax avoidance issue to me

Slocum, even if you get the sewer you are going to have to pay extra for it. Have you followed the continuing Bryan annexation issue? Folks along Hwy. 21 east (I think) were annexed years ago and told verbally that they would get sewers. Bryan has argued successfully that they would only provide sewer access, not pay for it. And Bryan refuses to de-annex them.

So the truth is that Wellborn folks will get NOTHING that they do not already have unless they pay for it. And they will get many things--read regulations--they do not want.

Yes, I know the parks argument. And I agree that CS has very, very nice parks. I doubt that Wellborn folks would complain about a user fee for CS parks. And I seriously believe that they aren't high users of CS parks anyway. The argument that "Wellborn folks drive on our streets" is dumb. Yes, they drive on CS streets to buy goods and pay sales taxes or to earn money so they can buy goods and thus pay sales taxes. Somehow they make this argument with no touch of sarcasm while they spend big bucks to lure tourists to the area, many of them to play games in their nice parks. It's Animal Farm economic theory at its best.

To those who whine that it is a tax avoidance issue, I answer that (for the City of College Station) it's a tax collection issue.

[This message has been edited by evermoreAg (edited 1/5/2011 10:34a).]

quote:

---

And just WHAT are we going to get for those taxes? I wouldn't mind paying taxes, IF I was going to get something for it. IF they can guarantee sewer in a year, I am all for it. It's not an issue of tax avoidance on my part. I really just don't see where getting annexed will behoove me in any way shape or form.

---

As someone who lives in the historic part of CS, I'd rather we leave you alone and make sure the sewer in my part of town works properly.

Fair enough, big perm, and I apologize for my presumption.

However, at the same time please bear in mind that annexation brings regulations which do in fact restrict property rights. Some of these regulations are tolerable, even good for both the property owner and the city as a whole. Many, though, are abused...public welfare morphs into "private preference", meaning people are able to tell you what to do with your property based on their opinion or preference, not because of fundamentals.

quote:

---

I would expect CS residents to be in favor of what's best for College Station.

---

Yes. But what IS in the city's best interest? Endless, spiraling growth sounds great to most city councils (not just ours) because of ever-increasing tax bases and because, quite simply, they equate population or area growth with progress.

On the other hand, many of us recognize that larger cities are frequently unpleasant, congested, messy places to live. Therefore we chose to live somewhere smaller. Not so that it could some day grow into a clone of those larger cities - but because we see the value in its existing (or previous?) size.

As a C/S resident, I believe it IS in the city's long-term "best interest" to cool the jets, let Wellborn incorporate, and quit trying to grow into something it doesn't need to be. And de-annex that ridiculous gerrymandered "Aspen Heights" subdivision while you're at it.

quote:

---

And just WHAT are we going to get for those taxes? I wouldn't mind paying taxes, IF I was going to get something for it. IF they can guarantee sewer in a year, I am all for it. It's not an issue of tax avoidance on my part. I really just don't see where getting annexed will behoove me in any way shape or form.

---

you will get everything that all the rest of us get and pay for. people in the ETJ have the same access to everything city residents do, but don't pay the same for it.

quote:

---

So the truth is that Wellborn folks will get NOTHING that they do not already have unless they pay for it

---

of course you have to pay for it. I just built my home in CS and guess what, I had to pay to connect to the city services. Do you actually want ME to pay to connect to your home?

quote:

---

However, at the same time please bear in mind that annexation brings regulations which do in fact restrict property rights. Some of these regulations are tolerable, even good for both the property owner and the city as a whole. Many, though, are abused...public welfare morphs into "private preference", meaning people are able to tell you what to do with your property based on their opinion or preference, not because of fundamentals.

---

you are correct.

there are certain overlays that can exist to preserve most of the things held dear to people living in the ETJ. There are somethings that have to be "regulated" when living in the city. What are some of the things that people in the proposed area of annexation are concerned about losing the right to do?

quote:

---

people in the ETJ have the same access to everything city residents do, but don't pay the same for it.

---

Bigperm, you keep going on about tax avoidance based on this idea that the Wellborn residents aren't paying for their fair share.

ksevern addressed services in an old thread. To me, it looks like Wellborn residents don't pay CS taxes and don't get CS services that we do as CS residents. So it's simply untrue that they have access to everything.

Sure, if I invite a friend from Wellborn to a dinner party and they pee in my bathroom, they use CS streets, water, and sewer. But it's a negligible fraction of the total.

Or are you just talking about county services? In that case, what difference does annexation make? I'm confused about where you are coming from.

"of course you have to pay for it. I just built my home in CS and guess what, I had to pay to connect to the city services. Do you actually want ME to pay to connect to your home?"

No. I did not say that and it does not refute my argument. Actually, I think Wellborn folks (and I do not live there) simply want you to go away and leave them alone.

My point is the same--Wellborn gets NOTHING that they want from being annexed. Once again, I believe it is a tax collection issue for College Station.

Collect more taxes so they have more money to spend on trees. Havent we all seen from the Federal Gov't that when you give them more revenue, they spend more revenue. That is bad for all of us.

This letter by Dr. Potter makes me lean toward go signing that petition.

I agree Daschie. Potter's letter was well written. I am also inclined to sign this petition.

Evermore & Slocum make very good points.

I too live in the ETJ and have been following all of the arguments. I spend my money supporting local and commercial businesses in Bryan/College Station & Navasota. That is what these cities get from me......sales tax and profit.

I pay school taxes for my children to attend CS public schools so that they receive and education.

If the COCS is not going to provide me with city services why would I pay them taxes for non-service??? If they want to charge me to use their city park because I am not a CS resident then so be it....pay as you go works fine for me.

You provide me a service and I will gladly pay for it.

quote:

---

I just built my home in CS and guess what, I had to pay to connect to the city services

---

Pay city taxes AND pay to connect? Next thing you'll be telling us is you have to pay a user fee every month.

Just what is it city residents get for their taxes? Public art? Trees? Continue by filling in the blank __________

And Wellborn residents shouldn't have a problem with being part of the city because___________

[This message has been edited by chev46 (edited 1/5/2011 3:18p).]

quote:

---

And Wellborn residents shouldn't have a problem with being part of the city because...

---

Nanny knows best

To me annexing Wellborn has nothing to do with CoCS trying to get more tax revenue. If CS wants more $$ look towards the building of the new S+W Hospital or the upcoming retail development splurge that is coming in Tower Point and the developments that will follow, cha-ching! Annexing Wellborn has to do with protecting the surrounding property owners from unsightly and unreasonable use of Wellborn land once the current occupants have passed on. For example, look at what has happened on Capstone Drive to the residents of Willow Run. That piece of property on the south side of Capstone was one of the most beautiful in Brazos County. What happened? Looked like grandpa died off and the kids sold out. Now we have "Aggie Nightmare" with hundreds of students with their noise and traffic problems. Those who have been saving for years to build their country dream home in Willow Run cannot even find a buyer for their now undesirable building lot. And look at Meadow Creek with all their sewage/drainage problems and the traffic it has created. Annexing Wellborn can allow restrictions to be put on that area which will protect and preserve your property from future inappropriate development and protect both Wellborn and the surrounding residents from your kids selling out to the highest bidder for who knows what use for your property. Annexation is an insurance policy to preserve and protect what you have worked so hard to create.

weepingwillow

Willow, are you saying that College Station city council members know better than you do what to do with your land?

It's not the residents of Wellborn we are worried about. It's their kids. We need regulations to preserve Wellborn as it is and not allow more nightmare development. Residents of Wellborn do not have control over this and by the looks of the "Octopus Map" don't like it either. We need to protect the property of Wellborn and the property of those living around the area also. Right now no one can control repercussions of the actions of kids of Wellborn, who must no longer live here, or else they would care enough to think what their actions are doing to the neighborhood.
[This message has been edited by weepingwillow (edited 1/5/2011 5:04p).]

[This message has been edited by weepingwillow (edited 1/5/2011 5:32p).]

quote:

---

Annexing Wellborn can allow restrictions to be put on that area which will protect and preserve your property from future inappropriate development and protect both Wellborn and the surrounding residents from your kids selling out to the highest bidder for who knows what use for your property. Annexation is an insurance policy to preserve and protect what you have worked so hard to create.

---

Why would somebody leave land to young goats?

but seriously... Raising children properly would be a better and easier solution.

The other flaw in your reasoning is that the current residents of Wellborn don't necessarily want the folks who are now "trying to sell their now undesireable land" to start building there in the first place...

plus most of those that did start building out there were doing so to live outside of the city... not IN it.

Willow- it is not the government's job to control what landowners (be they the original ones or not) can and can't do with their property. Everytime a law is passed, one of our rights is taken away. If you don't like what is happening around you, you have the right to move.

Willow, you're right about that abomination off of Capstone Drive. The problem is, it's actually IN the city. That's right, College Station must have entered into some unholy alliance with the developers of "Aspen Heights," the "gated student community" that not only drives down the neighbors' quality of life but also occupies a great deal of city police officers' time.

Look at that octopus map you were mentioning. The city went out of its way to jump over the tracks and annex that one, tiny little spot with its hundreds of rental units. NOTHING else over there is in the city. But those officers sure have to make a lot of trips out there to deal with all the problems. Not that those of us in the actual city mind, oh no. We can wait for them to get free to come handle our problems.

So pardon me if I don't see the altruistic intentions of the city in "protecting the surrounding property owners from the unsightly and unreasonable use of Wellborn land." The city seems to have its hands right in there, condoning unsightly development in the name of increasing its tax base. Be careful who you put your trust in.

Champ - But isn't that what Wellborn wants to do if they incorporate? They want to control what their own community does to preserve their current way of life? They don't want to move. I see it as futile unless the area is zoned or set aside as an area that cannot be built on, like a historical district or something. I can't see how Wellborn can stop the changes themselves. People die and land changes hands.

DTap - I'm not up to date on the Aspen Heights deal. It was just suddenly there. Due to its location, it appears that it should have at one time belonged to someone from Wellborn, and they sold it to a developer. Don't know when it was annexed. Willow Run was there first and so were its residents. That's why this willow is weeping.

Ok, with regard to Aspen Heights, from what I understand from what CS city staff have said, the developer basically pulled a switcheroo.

Someone correct me if I say anything incorrect. The original plan was for less dense development there (think detached houses), the developer asked for annexation for sewer service, and CS agreed. Then the developer went bust/sold the property, and because the property had sewer service, the new developer was able to put in more dense development.

My impression is that city staff are not happy/proud of this annexation/development, and that this event was the impetus of the CS ETJ restriction of 1-acre lot development which is now in force.

So I don‘t think that you can entirely blame the city of CS for this problem.

My impression is that either CS or a potential city of Wellborn could manage development, with the right restrictions and the right oversight. My problem with the Wellborn option is that I hear two different stories from Wellborn partisans. Some Wellborn posters want to keep Wellborn rural. This implies strong zoning restrictions. Others argue for land-owner property rights. This means that land owners – developers - could end the rural character. I understand there are multiple points of view among the Wellbornites, but it does lead to confusing/contradictory arguments on this board, and makes me wonder what would ultimately happen if Wellborn were to incorporate.

I think I have been on here too long and have caught the skepticism/cynicism bug. Weepingwillow created her/his profile this afternoon. Which council member do you suppose it is?

Sadly, I had the same thought, dachsie.

lost my dog...I don't know much about that development but taking what you write at face value, it doesn't say much for how CS is/will be able to "protect" land use.

daschie, you are probably right. Isn't five the limit for rookie posts on the first day?

evermoreAg – I agree Aspen Heights is not a shining moment in land development history. My real concern is what would happen if a potential city of Wellborn were in existence and in charge of regulating the development in this area.

First of all, let me note that without sewer service, development at the density of Aspen Heights probably wouldn’t happen – those of you on septic know you need a certain amount of land per toilet. There are methods of doing on-site treatment which would allow you to increase density, but I doubt developers would want to pursue that expense. Also, I don’t know if developers could ask CS to hook up to the CS sewer system without being annexed (that would be interesting – parts of CS get Wellborn water, parts of Wellborn give CS sewage!)

But drainage problems, and flooding of neighbors, can happen at less dense development levels. This seems to be what torques Wellborn neighbors to Aspen Heights.

I have seen no discussion of how a new city of Wellborn would deal with the issue of drainage from new development. This may be because of the split in the goals of the Wellbornites – is the most important thing preserving rural character or preserving property rights?

Wixon Valley and Kurten have been mentioned as examples of small incorporated communities. Wixon Valley doesn’t have much stuff online, but Kurten does. I looked at Kurten’s zoning regulations with respect to drainage. They basically say obey Texas state law, and give no evidence of how that would be enforced locally. Can we say lawsuits?

Again, I’m not trying to run anyone down (except perhaps the developer of Aspen Heights who did such a poor drainage job.) But I sometimes think Wellborn opposition to annexation is driven by a negative hatred of College Station, rather than a positive plan for what their community would be.


[This message has been edited by lost my dog (edited 1/5/2011 11:57p).]

LMD, it may be true that somehow Aspen Heights came into being and CS got saddled with it through some sleight-of-hand by the developers. But I doubt it.

First of all, Aspen Heights IS made up of detached "houses." It's not a traditional apartment complex. However, the houses are very close together, they only rent to students, and each house consists of four bedrooms which can be individually rented out. I don't know the population for the entire "community" but it's very dense - not even counting the soaring numbers whenever someone throws a party. But it's not as though the developer promised to build separate houses and then reneged on his promise.

Secondly, Aspen Heights didn't just accidentally come into being. Check out the language from their website: "Aspen Heights was created by a group of Baylor alums and parents that were very disappointed with the kind of rental housing available to Baylor students in Waco. ... After building a very successful project for Baylor students, we decided to build a similar development for students at A&M. Together we decided that building stylish upscale neighborhoods for college students would be our mission."

Yeah. Somehow I doubt that the city got tricked into annexing some behemoth noisy development that it didn't see coming. And as evermoreAg points out, if that were the case, it hardly fills me with confidence about the city's ability to exercise any control whatsoever over its sprawling borders.

Lost my dog, thanks for your reply. I am particularly interested in your statement:

"First of all, let me note that without sewer service, development at the density of Aspen Heights probably wouldn’t happen – those of you on septic know you need a certain amount of land per toilet. There are methods of doing on-site treatment which would allow you to increase density, but I doubt developers would want to pursue that expense."

You have made a pretty good argument against annexation and against sewer service to keep Wellborn "rural."

Last night on KBTX.com, we were presented with two views on costs:

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/Questions_Remain_Over_Costs_of_Annexing_Wellborn_112984784.html

Included is a scanned copy of the letter from JP Michael McCleary, Pct 1 http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/McCleary+Letter+1.pdf

http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/McCleary+Letter+2.pdf

Judge McCleary rightly points out some 'hidden' costs that may not make it to the city estimates.

K- is the petition still available to sign or has it already been turned in?

TXgirl76, sorry for the slow response.

Today, January 8, 2011, is the final day of signature collection. I know that the headquarters office will be open from 10-7. The office is located next to Little Caesars in Park Place Plaze (where Lacks is/was) on the Southwest Parkway side.

KORA is doing a live broadcast there today. I believe they are also collecting signatures on Texas Avenue just south of FM 2818 near Sonic and probably other places, but the headquarters office is a sure thing.

Every signature counts. The more signatures, the less the squabbling over those whose names are stricken off for whatever reason. That's why you want extra signatures-- so that you don't have to call folks and tell them that their city struck their name off and then they call the city and so on.